“Traditional scribal cues are a protection for the Torah; tithing is a protection for wealth; vows are a protection for separation [from physical matters]; protection for wisdom is keeping silent” (Avos 3:13/17). Aside from trying to understand what each of these four things mean, it is a bit curious that the fourth is taught slightly differently, with the subject being protected (wisdom) mentioned before what provides the protection. Let’s look at how each of these four things are understood, including what issues may arise from them, and then try to figure out why the last one was taught differently.

“Traditional scribal cues” are commonly understood to be the way we read the words (since there are no vowels in a Torah scroll), especially when a word seems to be written somewhat differently than tradition teaches us to pronounce it. Bartenura says it refers to the laws we learn from extra or missing letters; since fulfilling the Torah’s mitzvos incorrectly undermines its intent, and we need the traditions that were handed down in order to properly keep it, the traditional explanations of the mitzvos (and how they are learned from the words of the Torah) are a necessary protection for the Torah. Rabbeinu Yonah understands it to mean that our careful tradition as to how to read the words of the Torah have protected it from developing any major differences in the text, as opposed to the Talmud, which has a different reading in multiple places. Rabbeinu Bachye combines these two approaches; since we have a rock-solid tradition regarding how each word is written and read, each extra (or missing) letter/word can be used as the basis for many of the Torah’s laws. Other approaches say the oral law, or our oral traditions, or the idea of basing everything on the traditions of previous generations, protect the integrity of the Torah (see Midrash Sh’muel).

It is fairly well known that we are told to “tithe in order to become wealthy” (Ta’anis 9a), an expression based on the words “tithe” and “wealth” having the same letters (ayin-sin/shin-reish). Bartenura, Rashi and Rabbeinu Yonah are among the commentators who use this concept to explain our Mishna. Although this may not seem to fit with the statement that “tithing is a protection for wealth,” as we are being told to tithe in order to become rich rather than in order to stay rich, Rashi (and others) understand the word usually translated as “a fence” or “protection” to also mean “strengthen.” According to this, the expression should be translated as “tithing strengthens wealth” rather than “is a protection” for it. Nevertheless, if tithing increases wealth, it certainly protects it (as it not only helps keep the wealth one has intact, but adds onto it); Midrash Tanchuma (R’ay 18) actually continues the statement echoed in the Talmud by adding “tithe in order that you do not have a decrease,” making tithing a “protection” in the usual sense.

Meiri changes the connotation of the expression from tithing protecting wealth to protecting the wealthy person; by giving of one’s accumulated wealth to those in need, sharing it with others, it is far less likely for accumulating wealth take over one’s whole persona. If we are to be consistent, the other three protections listed would also be for the person rather than the item; when Meiri explains “tradition protecting the Torah” as the notes kept to make sure the meaning of the text stays intact, it would then refer to the person who already understands the text not forgetting what it means because he has notes to remind him. [See Tifreres Yisroel, who also explains each of the four to be referring to the person, thereby allowing him to be protected without having to expand the meaning of “siyug” to “strengthen.”]

Vows “protecting” separation from something is rather straightforward; the consequences of breaking the vow provides additional motivation to stay away from the item or activity one wants to avoid.

How silence protects (or strengthens) wisdom depends on (a) what would have otherwise been said, and (b) how “wisdom” is understood. Bartenura first discounts the possibility that we should be silent rather than speaking about Torah, bringing a scriptural proof that we have to speak about Torah. He then discounts the possibility that it refers to forbidden speech, as that is already prohibited. The only thing left is speech that is permitted, but doesn’t qualify as Torah. He does not explain how refraining from such speech “protects” wisdom (or what kind of wisdom it protects), but brings a proof that it does because Sh’lomo HaMelech tells us that a fool who is silent is thought to be wise (Mishlay 17:28); it is because wise people remain silent that foolish people can fool us into thinking they are wise by being similarly silent. It is also possible that he means that being quiet is in and of itself a manifestation of wisdom (see Vilna Ga’on on Mishlay 10:17), and therefore “strengthens” the wisdom one already possesses. This would certainly be true of wisdom that can be harmful if shared with those unable or not ready to process it properly (see Midrash Sh’muel). [It should be noted that Rambam, Hilchos Dayos 2:4, says that silence is beneficial for words of Torah too, not just permissible speech, although he defines “silence” as speaking fewer words, and speaking less often, as opposed to Bartenura, who seems to define it as complete silence, which can’t apply to words of Torah.]

Rambam (ibid, 2:5) explains the words “protection for wisdom is silence” as waiting before responding and not speaking often. [That he means not speaking often rather than not using many words is evident from having already told us (in the previous law) to use as few words as possible.] Rabbeinu Yonah says that by waiting before responding we can hear what the other person (especially a teacher) is trying to say more fully before (possibly) formulating a different approach. It also gives us more time to formulate a more complete response (see Rivash). Aside from “silence” not meaning complete silence (but initial silence in order to think things through first), this approach also seems to work better if silence “strengthens” wisdom rather than protecting it. Nevertheless, since subjectivity might impact how we respond, by waiting before responding we can “protect” the wisdom we have by not letting an emotional response undermine it.

Even the wisest of people have ideas on some subjects that are not (yet) fully developed (most likely because they haven’t yet had the need to develop them), and sharing their thoughts on such matters prematurely would expose their lack of wisdom in these areas. Therefore, silence is recommended in all areas, since one cannot know for sure which areas they are really experts in and which areas sharing their thoughts risks exposing their lack of expertise. There are times when expertise (or having a stronger knowledge base) must be shared, as paralysis can lead to a worse situation than going with the best available opinion. And if people don’t share what they know with others, everyone’s knowledge will be stuck in a vacuum, rather than helping each other’s knowledge base and grasp of concepts continually improve. Nevertheless, if such action is not necessary, and it’s not a matter of “group think,” speaking as an authority on a matter risks being exposed not only of not being one, but of inappropriately presenting oneself as one.

Getting back to why the order was changed for the last item, Midrash Sh’muel suggests that for the others, those aren’t the only things that provide “protection,” so it’s phrased as being “a” protection as opposed to being “the” protection. For wisdom, on the other hand, silence is the only thing that provides real protection, so we are told that “the protection for wisdom is silence.” However, it would be difficult to say that reviewing what one has learned doesn’t also protect it, or that delving deeper into a concept does not protect the wisdom gained during the initial stages of study. Others suggest that the change is merely one of style; since this is the last item in the series, it was taught slightly differently. I would like to suggest that there is something more substantive behind the change.

For the first three things, something must be done for it to have any effect. Notes had to be made regarding how to read the words of the Torah, or a tradition transmitted, for it to provide protection. Similarly, the tithing had to be done for it to affect wealth, and vows had to have been made in order to provide the increased motivation to attain, or maintain, separation. Silence, on the other hand, is not an action done, but a refraining from doing something. Therefore, when teaching us about the benefit of silence for wisdom, a lack of action is signified by not mentioning it until afterwards. This works even better according to Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah’s approach, as just as we should wait before speaking, the Mishna waited before telling us what protects wisdom.